Thanks for the clarification. Did the "separate sovereigns" doctrine develop as a mechanism for the federal government to correct lapses in state and local enforcement?
Forgive my ignorance, but what's the difference between "separate sovereigns" and "double jeopardy?" If a guy is being tried twice for the same crime, isn't that the very definition of "double jeopardy?"
As I understand it, the legislation attaches severe penalties to any crime motivated by racial hatred. I see no reason why a racially-charged attack against a white person wouldn't fall under this rubric.
I don't - as I said above, this is not an issue I'm very familiar with. Does the incidence of hate crimes matter, though? If hate crimes are worse than "regular" crimes, we should prosecute them more severely regardless of how frequently they occur.
Then again, if they don't occur particularly frequently, perhaps there's no need for additional deterrence.
Again, I just don't see how hate crime laws spill over to free speech. Committing a crime is a precondition for prosecution. If you don't commit a crime, you can say whatever the heck you want.
Ken's response pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue. If crimes motivated by sexual, racial or religious animosity are materially worse than crimes committed for more mundane reasons, it stands to reason that the criminals responsible ought to be punished more severely. As Ken says, a defendant's motive and state of mind are frequently considered in criminal court - why not extend such considerations to hate crimes?
As best I can tell, Mark, the legislation assigns set penalties for hate crimes. My (admittedly inarticulate) second point was that while I don't find the idea of assessing criminal penalties for psychological harms terribly objectionable, this particular piece of legislation doesn't leave a lot of room for discretion.
All valid concerns, though I don't think any of those issues are unique to hate crimes prosecution per se. Moreover, we seem to have found a workable approach in civil court when assessing emotional damages - why not apply something similar to hate crimes?
Wow, Mark - just got around to reading this and your legal analysis seems pretty devastating. One question: What does "predicate act" mean in the context of the memos?
Here's a head-scratcher for you: if traditions are more amorphous than their ideological counterparts, do we still retain the right to kick people out? I've always wondered how one goes about defining and policing a tradition's (already porous) borders . . .
The terminology does get a bit confusing, doesn't it? Here, I use "conservative" as a stand-in for a more traditionalist, illiberal understanding of politics.
I'm not sure if "outspoken" and "widely read" should be conflated. Greenwald and the Nation probably did more than, say, the American Conservative to push these issues into the mainstream, but that doesn't mean critics on the Right weren't equally outspoken (albeit more marginalized).
My broader point, however, is that a lot of our assumption about constitutionally-limited government derive from older, pre-modern political traditions. Even if Greenwald wouldn't describe himself as a conservative, the system he's defending is rooted in some fairly conservative assumptions.
Honestly, I hardly think anyone here at the League is guilty of over-romanticizing the United States or its history. My point was simply that the United States - as well as a select few other countries (most of which are in Europe) - is the product of a unique political tradition that is both a) very fragile and b) worth preserving.
On “Hate Crimes (II)”
Mark -
Thanks for the clarification. Did the "separate sovereigns" doctrine develop as a mechanism for the federal government to correct lapses in state and local enforcement?
"
Ken -
Forgive my ignorance, but what's the difference between "separate sovereigns" and "double jeopardy?" If a guy is being tried twice for the same crime, isn't that the very definition of "double jeopardy?"
On “One way forward for the West Bank”
Excellent post. Do you think this option is politically palatable?
On “Hate Crimes”
Cascadian -
Presumably there would have to be some evidence that your criminal activities were actually motivated by racial hatred.
"
Bob Cheeks -
As I understand it, the legislation attaches severe penalties to any crime motivated by racial hatred. I see no reason why a racially-charged attack against a white person wouldn't fall under this rubric.
"
Jaybird -
I mean acts motivated by hatred. Policing our thoughts is not what I have in mind.
"
Bob Cheeks -
I don't - as I said above, this is not an issue I'm very familiar with. Does the incidence of hate crimes matter, though? If hate crimes are worse than "regular" crimes, we should prosecute them more severely regardless of how frequently they occur.
Then again, if they don't occur particularly frequently, perhaps there's no need for additional deterrence.
"
Cascadian -
Again, I just don't see how hate crime laws spill over to free speech. Committing a crime is a precondition for prosecution. If you don't commit a crime, you can say whatever the heck you want.
"
Ken -
Thanks for the informative comment.
Mark -
Ken's response pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue. If crimes motivated by sexual, racial or religious animosity are materially worse than crimes committed for more mundane reasons, it stands to reason that the criminals responsible ought to be punished more severely. As Ken says, a defendant's motive and state of mind are frequently considered in criminal court - why not extend such considerations to hate crimes?
"
As best I can tell, Mark, the legislation assigns set penalties for hate crimes. My (admittedly inarticulate) second point was that while I don't find the idea of assessing criminal penalties for psychological harms terribly objectionable, this particular piece of legislation doesn't leave a lot of room for discretion.
"
To be honest, I'm not sure.
"
Jay Bird -
All valid concerns, though I don't think any of those issues are unique to hate crimes prosecution per se. Moreover, we seem to have found a workable approach in civil court when assessing emotional damages - why not apply something similar to hate crimes?
On “Barre None”
Grunthos -
Fascinating stuff, and thanks for the phonetics tutorial. Clint's take may be definitive though.
"
Weird.
On “Not to beat a dead horse…”
Hahahaha are we getting kickbacks from the Gravatar people or something?
On “Not Reading What You Defend”
Wow, Mark - just got around to reading this and your legal analysis seems pretty devastating. One question: What does "predicate act" mean in the context of the memos?
On “Why They Fight”
Greginak -
I don't know, I think there's some value to throwing out a provocative viewpoint every one and awhile.
On “Tradition in the modern United States.”
So, ummm, we can kick people out if their first names are 'Clarence' and they didn't attend public school?
"
Brafford -
Here's a head-scratcher for you: if traditions are more amorphous than their ideological counterparts, do we still retain the right to kick people out? I've always wondered how one goes about defining and policing a tradition's (already porous) borders . . .
On “Saturday Juke Joint”
Nicely done, Dierkes.
On “The Tudors, Tradition and Tyranny”
E.D. -
Clearly, then, you hate America.
Patrick Duffy -
The terminology does get a bit confusing, doesn't it? Here, I use "conservative" as a stand-in for a more traditionalist, illiberal understanding of politics.
"
Brafford -
I'm not sure if "outspoken" and "widely read" should be conflated. Greenwald and the Nation probably did more than, say, the American Conservative to push these issues into the mainstream, but that doesn't mean critics on the Right weren't equally outspoken (albeit more marginalized).
My broader point, however, is that a lot of our assumption about constitutionally-limited government derive from older, pre-modern political traditions. Even if Greenwald wouldn't describe himself as a conservative, the system he's defending is rooted in some fairly conservative assumptions.
On “left conservatism revisited”
I really enjoyed reading this post, E.D.
On “Torture (II)”
Danilo -
Honestly, I hardly think anyone here at the League is guilty of over-romanticizing the United States or its history. My point was simply that the United States - as well as a select few other countries (most of which are in Europe) - is the product of a unique political tradition that is both a) very fragile and b) worth preserving.
"
Then, quite frankly, we're fucked.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.